Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Socialism,Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics

Socialism,Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics

Ratings: (0)|Views: 109|Likes:
Published by Redza
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”—H. G. Wells
by Dr. K R Bolton
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”—H. G. Wells
by Dr. K R Bolton

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: Redza on May 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics
by Dr. K R Bolton
May 04, 2010
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.” 
—H. G. Wells.[1]
Marxism is widely known as including as a primaryideological premise the concept of dialectics, or “dialecticalmaterialismas the Marxists term their variation of theHegelian theory. The Marxian dialectic is outlined in
TheCommunist Manifesto
; history is described as a progressionof economic struggle for class primacy that goes through phases including those of primitive communism, feudalism,capitalism, socialism and ultimately communism.[2]Capitalism thus is an essential phase in the Marxist dialecticof historical progression towards communism. Wherecapitalism does not at first exist, this is seen as a hindrancerather than as a benefit to the development of socialism. TheMarxist premise was that socialism must proceed from acapitalist economy.Hence Marx wrote in
The Communist Manifesto
: National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing,owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market,to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.[3]Marx further stated:Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Tradesystem has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for FreeTrade.[4]In Marx’s own day, he saw the then dominant and newly emerging Free Trade School as part of a necessary dialectical process of history that makes more acute the antagonism between theclasses, internationalizes the proletariat and indeed as “precipitating the social revolution.”Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy for the purpose of bringing Russia, hitherto stillundeveloped industrially, into the stage of industrial development required as the prerequisitefor building socialism, and opened the new Soviet state to foreign capital.[5] Today, the Chineseleadership can rationalize capitalist economic innovations on the basis that China must firstdevelop a certain economic phase before proceeding to a fuller socialist economy. Vietnam atthe moment, after having spent much of its history fighting for sovereignty against foreigndomination, whether it be that of ancient China, or colonial France, or the American presence,1
now succumbs to the global economic development model and has entered the world economy,subjecting herself to World Bank and International Monetary Fund “guidance” and “advice”,and having 42% of its GDP serving debt, which the World Bank assures us is an acceptable debtlevel.[6] Here again Vietnam’s leadership is within the Marxian dialectical framework of  building its economy through capitalist structures and debt as a prelude to socialism andultimately to communism, assuming that a state once becoming part of the internationalfinancial structure can ever remove itself.
Capitalism and Dialectics
What is not generally recognized is that capitalism also has a dialectical approach to history. Inthis
dialectical capitalism
, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a “Brave New World”centralized world economy controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by technocrats and boards of directors. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term toachieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behindcapitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown. As statedabove H. G. Wells opined—approvingly—at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that BigBusiness and communism are both paths to the same end—”Collectivism.” The “socialistic”orientation of certain capitalists at the apex of the world economy is exemplified by a statement by the late Nelson Rockefeller of the famous capitalist dynasty: “I’m a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”[7]In terms of having backed socialism and other forms of social revolution or revolt, the dialecticsof capitalism considers that a capitalist society cannot be achieved until a rural or economicallyanachronistic society has gone from its peasant stage into an industrial phase. In order toachieve this sudden and enforced industrialization of a peasant or rural society, certain capitalistinterests have used socialism.The capitalist dialectic in simple terms can be seen as the mirror image of the Marxist dialectic:Marxism states that socialism cannot be achieved from a rural society until it has becomeindustrialized by capitalism; the capitalist dialectic postulates that capitalism can be moreeffectively achieved if a rural society is first industrialized by the dictatorial methods of socialism.History has shown that the capitalist dialectic has been successful: certain business interests backed or at least welcomed socialist revolutions in Russia and China to overthrow traditional peasant societies. Once socialism had been used to achieve the industrialization of thosesocieties, the next phase of the dialectic has been to introduce privatization and globalization tothe economies of the former Eastern bloc; the present phase of the dialectic, while China’seconomy seems to be proceeding along desired paths as part of the world economic system.This theory is not as fanciful as might at first be assumed, when one considers that Marxistacademics have long taught that fascism is part of a capitalist dialectic, having describedfascism as nothing more than the “last defense of capitalism.”[8] The capitalist dialectic I am proposing here is somewhat similar; except that it is socialism, including Marxism, that has been the focus of a capitalist dialectic, and this dialectic is more readily observable in practicethan the largely theoretical Marxist interpretation of a fascist-capitalist dialectic. The contentionhere is that socialism and other revolutionary movements have been used as a means of subverting traditional religious, rural societies to bring them suddenly and forcefully into amodern economy from which capitalism can proceed. Marxism has in such instances servedcapitalism in destroying not only those institutions that are obstacles to the development of thecapitalism, but also the
that plutocrats and technocrats regard as anachronisms andobstacles to the formation of a production and consumption mass society. In short, socialism has2
 been a means of destroying what capitalism regards as anachronistic.
Between Two Worlds
Is there any evidence for such a dialectical outlook serving as the basis for corporate planners? I believe there is, and it has been particularly cogently expressed by a then up-and-coming youngacademic named Zbigniew Brzezinksi, who was to carve a name for himself in the highestechelons of political administration and within international business think tanks.Brzezinski, who served as President Carter’s National Security adviser, and is a foreign policyadviser to President Obama, has been the North American director of the Rockefeller think tank the Trilateral Commission,[9] is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,[10] and a participant at the international conferences of The Bilderberg Group, wrote his
 Between Two Ages
as a dialectical treatise on the process of 
, or 
as it is nowcalled. While he sees Marxian dialectics as too simplistic his own approach is nonethelessdialectical. Brzezniski considers approvingly the technocratic age as progressivelydestroying the nation-state and undermining traditional loyalties, out of which a global oligarchywould emerge. He wrote:Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they arecomposed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. Theties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined bynational traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These globalcommunities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highlyinternationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.[11] –~~~~~~~~~~~~– This “transnational elite … composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men,and public officials”, as Brzezinski describes them, have transcended and consciously evolved beyond traditional loyalties and prejudices, and would consider themselves the vanguard of anew enlightened age of capitalism. Brzezinski laments that most of humanity does not yet sharethe vision of the “elite”, writing:The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. Itstill lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity—indeed, the majority of humanity—still neither shares nor is prepared to support it.[12]Over pages 31 to 33 of 
 Between Two Ages
Brzezinski considers the
progression of human consciousness towards internationalism, starting with the spiritual universalism of theChurch, through to the secularization of this universal outlook with the rise of (liberal)nationalism and the French and American Revolutions, to Marxism which furtheinternationalized and de-sacralized man’s consciousness, to the present state of “globalconsciousness” heralded by this “elite”. Brzezinski explains the process. It is worth quoting atlength:With nationalism, the distinction between the inner contemplative man, concerned with hisrelationship to God, and the external man, concerned with shaping his environment, became blurred. Nationalism as an ideology was more activismans relations to man wereobjectivized externally by legal norms and were not dependent, as was man’s relation to God,on personal conscience; yet at the same time the definition of man as a “national” was basedlargely on abstract, historically determined, and highly emotional criteria. This outlook involved considerable vagueness and even irrationality when used as a conceptual framework within which relations between nations and developments within nations might be3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->